Pensées

Random thoughts and essays on life, religion, science, ethics, and social issues.

"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it." - Blaise Pascal

October 30, 2005

Dan Brown - Plagiarist or Student of History?

I hate to break up a running series of articles (on abiogenesis), but I just ran across something that I found entertaining. It seems that Dan Brown, of The Da Vinci Code fame, has had a lawsuit filed against him for copyright infringement. The authors of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail (HBHG) have apparently suffered in the shadows of Brown's success long enough. You see, the entire premise of Brown's book — that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child by her, and that Mary is the true "Grail" — is based upon the "investigative" work of the authors of HBHG. Brown even gives the nod to this work by both mentioning it in his pages and by (not so) cryptically naming one of his main characters (Leigh Teabing) after its authors, Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent.

Now, HBHG offers these ideas about the life of Jesus and Mary as the "real" story. This is supposedly the authentic history that the Church has suppressed all these years. And even though Brown's book is a fictional murder mystery, he claims that the historical backdrop for the story is grounded in "fact" (which he personally claims to believe). So, if the borrowed content in question is a matter of "history," then what is the problem? Can somebody be sued for infringement if they build upon someone else's historical findings? Could the filmmakers of "Titanic" and "Braveheart" be sued by the historians? I'm no attorney but I'm thinking, not.

This seems like an interesting dilemma to me. I'm sure that Leigh and Baigent meant for us to take their theories as historical truth, however, with this lawsuit they are implying that Brown has simply infringed upon their creative (read, "fictional") ideas. So, which is it: fact or fiction? This would be an interesting case to follow on the off chance that the court thinks to press the distinction. But I think the very fact that the authors of HBHG filed charges against Brown speaks of their intuitive understanding of which domain their claims fall into.

October 25, 2005

Abiogenesis: A Problem of Origins (part 2)

(Part 2 in a 3 part series)

Making Bricks

Granted, life is complex, but what is so impossible about starting life if you've got plenty of time and materials at your disposal? After all, didn't we once have a seething prebiotic soup covering our planet? Weren't the oceans a rich primordial ooze teaming with exotic chemicals derived from a mix of an alien atmosphere, abundant lightning, and solar energy? And isn't our planet billions of years old? Time plus chance are a dynamic duo. So, what's the problem?

The problem is with all of the assumptions.

The first flaw is in the myth of the prebiotic soup. The idea of a chemical "soup" is not a product of geological evidence, it was merely assumed based on its theoretical need. In order to build a thing you first need the materials with which to build it, and since life (or any meaningful precursor to it) is such a complex thing, you need a lot of materials jostling around for chance to do its work.

Unfortunately, there is no compelling evidence that our oceans, or the atmosphere with which it might interact, had the necessary composition to produce even the building blocks of the cell. It was assumed that the early earth had a "reducing atmosphere," (hydrogen, methane, ammonia, water vapor) which would enable the creation of the essential components. Instead, the evidence indicates that it was a mix of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. There are also many strong indications that free oxygen has been present even from before the appearance of life. This would be a substantial problem in that oxygen is destructive to the molecules necessary to assemble biological life. And the greatest irony is that water — which is so necessary for life — actually interferes with the assembly of certain of these building blocks.

Regardless of the state of the earliest atmosphere, there was an extensive period of Earth's history that was unavailable for the formation of life, or at least its survival. This is due to the continual bombardment of the earth by pre-planetary materials, the scars of which can still be seen on our moon. The largest of these would have sterilized any life that might have formed, and such events did not dwindle until approximately 4 billion years ago. The interesting thing is that the earliest geological records have life arriving on the scene shortly after this time. The long period of time necessary to allow chance to work its magic has evaporated. In the words of Steven Jay Gould:

We are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth’s surface and the origin of life. Life is not a complex accident that required immense time to convert the vastly improbable into the nearly certain. Instead, life, for all its intricacy, probably arose rapidly about as soon as it could.

And paleontologist Niles Eldridge goes a step farther in saying that

There is now overwhelmingly strong evidence, both statistical and paleontological, that life could not have been started on Earth by a series of random chemical reactions.... There simply was not enough time... to get life going.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that all the conditions did happen to be just as they had hoped. What is it that might be produced? Well, according to the famous Miller-Urey experiments, when energy is added to the chemical mix (hydrogen, methane, ammonia, water vapor) certain essential molecules are produced. Most notably, these include amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. And proteins are some of the most important and abundant components of the cell. This was an exciting step for origins of life research. Unfortunately, it was only a token victory.

First of all, it should be noted that proteins are made up of some 20 different amino acids, and not all of these were formed in these or subsequent experiments. Second, the energy needed to assemble amino acids is as likely to destroy them as form them, so the experiment itself must carefully take this into account. This means that the results of the experiment were a matter of human engineering — intelligent design. Third, in the presence of oxygen, there would be no results to speak of and, as stated earlier, there is substantial evidence that oxygen was present in the early atmosphere and oceans. Fourth, even though some desirable molecules were present, the vast majority of what was produced was an insoluble tar-polymer. So, to yield enough amino acids in our oceans to give "chance" a fighting chance would also mean the existence of an enormous amount of tar, which would in turn leave a distinct signature in the fossil record. There is no trace of such a thing, nor is there evidence of any other biotic precursor or byproduct in the geological strata prior to the sudden appearance of cellular life.

But again, let's assume for the sake of argument that all the essential amino acids can be formed by natural processes. We still have the problem of building proteins from these, and as theoretical physicist and astrobiologist Paul Davies said:

Just as bricks alone don't make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.

If amino acids are like bricks from stirred mud, then proteins are like mansions from stirred bricks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 17, 2005

Abiogenesis: A Problem of Origins (part 1)

(Part 1 in a 3 part series)

If I were a creationist, I would cease attacking the theory of evolution - which is so well supported by the fossil record - and focus instead on the origin of life. This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.Horgan, John [Senior Writer, Scientific American], The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age, New York: Broadway Books, 1996

Of all the issues that must be addressed by evolutionary theory, the problem of abiogenesis is the most fundamental and troublesome – it is the soft underbelly of evolutionary science. In fact, it is such a difficult issue that evolutionists are quick to separate it from the topic of evolution at large, where they feel they are on firmer ground. But without abiogenesis there is nothing to "evolve." It may be a separate question, but the failure to account for it is a logical defeater to the materialistic project in which evolution is so prominently featured.

So what exactly is abiogenesis? Well, for life to evolve it must first exist in some self-replicating form. And since prior to life there is only simple chemistry, there is a chasm that must be bridged. Life must somehow come from non-life: abiogenesis. Of course, this is not an issue if you are willing to accept that God has intervened in nature, but for scientists intent on finding a "natural" cause for life this has proved an intractable problem. Let me now step into the world of the naturalistic scientists to share some of their frustrations. Of course, to do so I must take on their assumption of an ancient earth, whether or not that is actually the case, but as we shall see it will be of little assistance.

The first problem that biochemists face is the vast complexity of the life that is to be explained. The earliest and oldest known life forms are very much like the single celled bacteria and algae that are still with us today. In Darwin's day, prior to refined optics and electron microscopes, such cells were perceived as mere blobs of "protoplasm." The development of, and evolutionary changes in, such a thing is far easier to imagine than what the cell actually turns out to be.

In reality, the cell is a marvel of biochemical machinery and information storage. As Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote in the biology journal Cell:

We have always underestimated cells. … The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. … Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

Biochemist Michael Denton, author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, adds another remarkable cellular feature when he writes, "it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours."

Such modern revelations about the cell have exceeded the limits of credulity for most evolutionary scientists. In the words of astronomer and physicist Sir Fred Hoyle, the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacterium "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein." Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, observed, "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going." And our recognition of the complexity of the "simple cell" has only increased since these statements were made.

For this reason, it is not assumed that such organisms were the first in the chain of existence. It is then assumed that something less complex must have preceded the common single cell organism. Unfortunately, there is nothing simpler known or hinted at in the fossil record. As far back as we can examine there is life of this same kind, and before that there is only barren rock. It is no wonder that even secular presentations of this historical event use phrases like "a miracle occurred" to cover their loss of explanation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 14, 2005

You Know You Live in the Internet Age When...

My family has now been fully assimilated into the age of the internet. Why do I say that? Yesterday, when I arrived home from work, I discovered that my 8 year old son and his neighborhood friends had been playing with the sidewalk chalk. On my driveway, there was the inevitable hopscotch pattern. There were the renderings of pets and self-portraits. These I could tell by their subject and quality were drawn by the neighbor girls. But what had my son drawn? Cars? Monsters? Rockets? Cartoon heroes? No! There, scrawled down half the length of the drive, begging the world to notice, was the address of his new internet blog.

October 13, 2005

Misconceptions About Intelligent Design (part 3)

"ID theory is not falsifiable"

There is a sense in which science can never disprove a supernatural overlord, since science, by its own definition, deals only with questions of nature. But by successfully finding natural explanations for every phenomenon of nature, science could certainly confine God to the world of secondary causes. However, ID is so far from being falsified that this is merely an academic question. One is not concerned with the behavior of cornered foxes while they are freely raiding your henhouse through holes in your fence.

There is a question here as to who actually bears the burden of proof in this debate? Richard Dawkins, one of evolution's leading advocates, says that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." This admits that our default conclusion (perhaps even our deepest intuition) is that life is "designed." I would contend, then, that it is the evolutionists who carry the burden to prove by way of some plausible alternative explanation that it is not designed. If I see a pile of logs stacked up neatly by a fence, I am surely warranted to think that some personal cause is involved. And if someone wants to convince me that nature has done this by chance, they will have to provide me with some very detailed and compelling story. Evolutionists say that they have done so in the case of biological life; ID proponents claim that they have not, and that modern science has mounted evidence to that effect. Evolution has had its day in the sun. ID is calling for an accounting.

As it turns out, naturalistic evolution is every bit as "unfalsifiable" as it claims about ID. When presented with the fact that the very laws of physics are fine tuned for the support of complex biochemical life, they will say, "Perhaps we are just in one of the lucky universes out of a possible infinity." When faced with the great gaps in the fossil record that Darwin predicted would be filled by now, they propose a theory — Punctuated Equilibrium — that uses the gaps as the very explanation of how evolution has occurred, and suggest that we "shouldn't expect to find many intermediate fossils." When considering the issue of biological "big bang" events, like the Cambrian Explosion, they will say, "Maybe something caused a super acceleration of evolution." When addressing the ever-elusive problem of the origin of the first life form (abiogenesis), they will say, "Give us more time, we haven't given up yet."

Naturalistic evolution has become an invincible theory that mutates to fit any data, or lack thereof, yet itself is never the subject of scrutiny. As one Chinese paleontologist put it, "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin." And when critics do point to missing mechanisms and insurmountable probabilities, in lieu of hard data they reply that it is just a "failure of imagination."

"ID theorists are biased and have an agenda"

If by "bias" one means that ID theorists have beliefs and intentions upon which they are acting, then certainly. So does anyone who engages in any pursuit. Neutrality launches no ships and fights no battles. But if ID proponents are pursuing an agenda then so are groups like The National Center for Science Education, which admits its own agenda to "defend the teaching of evolution in public schools" and to "keep evolution in the science classroom and 'scientific creationism' out."

The agenda that is specifically being referred to is a religious one. It is implied that the only reason for even proposing ID is that one is first convinced that a "designer" exists — ID is arguing from its conclusion rather than to a conclusion. This accusation is born of the observation that many ID advocates just happen to be Christian theists, as though design is an article of faith rather than a conclusion based on objective science. I will attack this charge at five points.

1. Not every theist takes issue with evolution. There are many self-proclaimed Christians, like biology professor Kenneth Miller, who seem perfectly happy to fit evolution into their worldview. Michael Behe, one of the chief advocates of ID theory, was actually propelled into this debate not as a result of his Roman Catholic beliefs, but only after he had been persuaded by the book by agnostic Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Even so, Behe holds to a very modest view of the activities of this designer, which makes biblical "creationists" squeamish.

2. Not all who take issue with evolution are theists. One such person is David Berlinski. Berlinski is a Jewish agnostic who is one of the leading advocates of ID theory. What Berlinski personally has in mind as the designer is unknown to me, but this is immaterial in the context of ID theory, which does not speak to the nature of the "designer." In fact, the atheist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, would also have qualified as an ID theorist when he proposed that aliens may have seeded life on this planet.

3. For some, ID theory has been the cause of their theism. Dean Kenyon, one of the pioneers in origins of life theory, was set on the road to Christianity after having his scientific theories challenged by one of his students. And preeminent atheistic philosophers Antony Flew, recently converted to theism on the basis of the modern arguments offered by ID proponents.

4. So what? What does the observation that many ID advocates are theists have to do with the truth of ID theory itself? As C.S. Lewis once said, you must first establish that a man is mistaken before it is meaningful to ask why he is mistaken. If this were a relevant argument, then my fifth point would be a successful parry by definition.

5. Many of the chief advocates of evolutionary theory are non-theists. We can equally observe that evolutionists are often atheists, especially so their outspoken champions, like Richard Dawkins and the late Steven Jay Gould. Atheists need a "creation myth" too. For them, evolution must be true of necessity; for to reject it means the defeat of their materialism and an open door to some transcendent force or being. This is why most ID proponents are theists, since atheism cannot, in principle, allow for the possibility of a transcendent designer. However, theism could allow God to do anything by means of primary or secondary causes. Theism turns out to hold the more open-minded position.

"Science stays out of religion so ID should stay out of science"

The late Stephen Jay Gould coined the phrase "nonoverlapping magisteria" to describe a proposed philosophical divide between religion and the sciences. Science would tell us how the heavens go and theologians would tell us how to go to heaven. Unfortunately, this partition turns out to be a prison wall with religion on the inside. Evolutionists freely apply their science to make sweeping metaphysical conclusion, and from Gould's own pen came statements like these:

"Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us.""Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God.""No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature."

And with the emasculation, if not death, of God go all the moral prescriptions with which He might have invested the creation. Observe the following representative quotes from academics who feel no reservations about treading upon the "magisterial" domain of religion and ethics:

"As evolutionists, we see that no 'ethical' justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God's will....In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeth's dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance." — Michael Ruse & Edward O. Wilson

"[Rape] is a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage." — Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer

Evolution teaches that "we are animals" so that "sex across the species barrier ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings." — Peter Singer

And they do not stop there. In answer to the idea that life exhibits the hallmark of design, they engage in wild speculation over the methods, motives, and mental competence of the designer. Examples of "sub-optimal" systems are employed to impugn the wisdom of this alleged designer, like the panda's "ad hoc" thumb, inverted photoreceptors in the eye, and parasitic organisms.

Many of these counter-examples can be resolved with further knowledge of functional purpose, but if they wish to enter the world of transcendent causes and insist upon slandering the designer, then we should be free to send in the theologians for a response. Answers to such charges must necessarily consider factors such as the state of man's condition, the purpose of the creation and our sojourn here, and our ultimate destiny. Without the benefit of such theological groundwork, we are handicapped in our reply. But if evolution does not tolerate scientific dissent, then it will surely not suffer the theologians to violate her sacred soil.

October 07, 2005

Misconceptions About Intelligent Design (part 2)

"ID is not science because supernatural explanations are outside the scope of science"

First of all, it should be noted that this is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. Defining the scope of science is the domain of the philosophers of science; science itself cannot be employed to define itself any more than persons can conceive themselves.

Studying the operation of the natural world and its causal connections is certainly a valid pursuit. In fact, it is perfectly in line with a Christian worldview, which believes that the world is made by a God of order and purpose. But studying natural processes and claiming that they are omnipotent are two different things. Being aggressive in the pursuit of natural causes and saying that "nature is all there is, was, or ever will be" available as an explanation are two different philosophical positions.

Naturalistic scientists are determined to set the boundaries of "science" to disallow outside causes. Nothing outside the "box" is game for consideration. This means that the idea of a transcendent designer is ruled a foul before it can even come up to bat. For this reason, many of the debates over ID end up being less about the evidences and more about the rules of science. This makes questions of origins rather problematic. With these naturalistic rules in place, if there were a designer how could we ever know it in principle? And even if the "designer" were a part of the natural world (an alien for instance), then we shall never arrive at that conclusion.

As mentioned above, modern science has stacked the deck against certain kinds of answers. When the qualification for being "scientific" is that your explanations are naturalistic, it is kind of difficult in principle to meet the requirement for publication if your conclusion gives quarter to the supernatural. Soundness of argument and quality of evidence are secondary to the larger issue of maintaining naturalistic orthodoxy. One editor discovered this the hard way when he was careless enough to allow an ID theorist's paper to slip into his publication because it was camouflaged as compelling science. Those interested in reviewing the inquisition that ensued may begin their journey here.

In spite of such opposition, ID has made some fairly impressive forays into the academic world, and has gotten far more scientific attention and "review" than biblical creationism has had the fortune to receive. This is largely because, even from the outset, ID books and papers have drawn their conclusions and supported their case from approved publications. And those who are raising the concerns over the adequacies of Darwinian theory are not just fundamentalist High School science teachers, but dissenting voices in the academic community. Even if ID did not face these strong philosophical barriers, it is still the case that science has its sacred cows and its axioms die a hard death.

"Accepting ID would mean the end of scientific investigation"

The gist of this complaint is that if we are free to appeal to God in the face of mystery, then we shall not push the scientific envelope; we'll just say "goddunnit" and leave it at that. But history proves otherwise. It must be remembered that materialistic science is a relative newcomer on the historic western scene, where most of the great scientists, on whose shoulders we stand, have been Christians who took the idea of a creator/designer for granted. In fact, it was their commitment to this God of law, order, and purpose that drove them to imagine that there was something worthy to be explored at all. As Kepler stated, they wanted to "think God's thoughts after Him."

In fact, there are grounds for accusing materialistic science of being the cause of much backward and dismissive thinking. Consider the following, and how an assumption of design would have influenced the thinking in each case.

There was a time when nearly 100 human organs were considered nonfunctional "vestigial" leftovers of evolution. Purposes have been discovered for these, one by one, on further investigation (I believe the appendix was the last to be crossed off the list).

When genetic researchers discovered a large volume of DNA that did not seem to code for proteins, the ignorance over its actual purpose was translated by naturalistic scientists into the assumption that it must be "Junk DNA," which is merely a product of failed or outdated evolutionary development. You would be right to guess that further investigation has yielded new insights as to the utility of this DNA.

In times past, when it was observed that mold forms on cheese and maggots on meat, the idea of "spontaneous generation" arose among those of high credulity and low regard for a creator.

As the evidence began to mount for a cosmological "big bang" event, many of the objectors were non-theists who took exception on less than scientific grounds. Consider this quote by Sir Arthur Eddington: "Philosophically the notion of a beginning of the present order is repugnant to me . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole. I simply do not believe the present order of things started off with a bang."

Misconceptions About Intelligent Design (part 1)

(Part 1 in a 3 part series)

I've just read this interesting cursory discussion on the question of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools, and it brings to my mind several common misconceptions about this topic. Now, ID theory may or may not be good "science," but I think if we are going to debate it we should at least accurately understand it in its context. Here are my responses to some of the most frequent charges leveled against it.

"ID is just thinly veiled creationism"

It may be true that many ID supporters are Christian (though some are not even theists), but this theory is philosophically independent from the question of who the "designer" may happen to be. In theory, it may be Gaia (a sentient planet), the God of Mormonism, a space alien, or the Christian God. That remains an independent question, just as evolutionists would very much like to separate the issue of common descent from the issue of abiogenesis (where the first life-form came from).

While ID is certainly consistent with Christianity, it is not identical to it. Its arguments should be taken on their own merits. To reject an argument simply because you don't like who or where it came from is called the "genetic fallacy." Those who attack the champions of ID and not the tenants of the theory itself only bring suspicion upon themselves that they lack a legitimate defense.

"ID advocates want to teach biblical creationism in school"

While I cannot speak for all who would seek to introduce ID into their curriculum, I can say that, officially, the desires of ID proponents are rather modest. At most, they want to "teach the controversy." That is, they want to permit the teaching of evolution, but allow the teachers to explore not only the supporting evidence but also the gaps in that evidence. To quote the Discovery Institute, the flagship organization for the ID movement:

Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?

No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.

The ID discussion intends to stay within the boundaries of the question of origins as it seeks to be answered by naturalistic science, e.g., if evolution is a feasible mechanism. Going beyond this to offer some form of behind the scenes insight as to how and why the "designer" designed is agreed to be beyond to scope of public education. For this reason, the question remains open as to whether this "designer" was the God of the Bible or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (although science and historical investigation may, in fact, offer further insights into the possible nature of this designer).

Articles by Category

Dan Brown - Plagiarist or Student of History?
That Magdalene was married to Jesus and they had a child is a hypothesis -- a theory. Every theory is creative in a sense, including factual ones. When someone comes up with a theory, no matter how speculative or factual, it's obvious the inventor of the theory wants credit for it. In this case, I suspect the authors of HBHG are upset that Dan Brown's book, which relies on their work so much, got so much success and they got nothing in return. They probably want some sort of royalties. Whether this holds up in court is up to the judge, but I don't think the case says anything about whether or not the authors of HBHG think their theory has any real veracity: the authors just feel left out. They would feel the same way whether they believed their theory was true or not. If someone in 1916 wrote a story of which the Theory of Relativity was a central theme (e.g. an astronaut travels in outer space and returns to find that all his friends and family have aged while he remains in relative youth), and made millions of dollars off this, Einstein might have taken exception to this, as only one year before he had presented this theory to the public, and at the time it was still highly controversial. The Magdalene theory shares the same traits -- it's fairly recent, someone besides the authors made millions off it, and it is highly controversial. But that doesn't mean Einstein or the authors of HBHG would think their theory bunk by suing the one who got money off it.
Dale, you explain what might motivate the lawsuit, but the fact that the lawsuit has enough legal merit for a lawyer to take it on, and if a judge also thinks so, then it implies that it's fiction. As Paul says, there is no law (that I'm aware of) that would be able to enforce a copyright on a scientific or historical theory. The law in effect here is one against plagiarism, and Dan Brown properly cites the authors who have brought suit.
I agree. As long as he sited them properly in his book, there is no way that the lawsuit could be valid, unless their book is acknowledged to be fiction.

Otherwise, Isaac Newton could have sued anyone who wrote about someone falling down for copyright infringement, and Microsoft could sue anyone who wrote about how to program in VS.net, or how to use Excel...
I think what you two are saying actually supports my original point.

You have shown the only means by which the authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail can sue Dan Brown is by claiming their work was fiction and Brown plagiarized it. I don't disagree with that.

This supports my point that the fact the authors are suing Brown does not necessarily imply that they, themselves, believe their book is a work of fiction, which was Paul's main point. As you've shown, claiming their book was a work of fiction may be the only way they can take Brown to court, so it says nothing of their personal beliefs. They could believe their book or not believe their book, but they'd be suing the same way right now regardless.
I agree that they could be suffering from cognitive dissonance. I would just love to see these presuppositions get drug out on the table for all to see, and I'd like the lawsuit to succeed only by virtue of their grudging admission that they were simply engaging in creative imagination. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have trial over The Da Vinci Code to determine if it's based on fiction or fact?
You know, Paul, maybe that's just what's going to happen if this goes to court. Dan Brown's defense team might claim that HBHG doesn't have a case because their work is factual, while the authors of HBHG will have to argue that it was just creative writing.
Dan Brown is going to lose, he ripped off a fictional story. That's just plaigirism. If he cited a historical source, it would be fine. But stealing from a work of fiction is definitely a crime.
But Holy Blood, Holy Grail is not a fictional story like The Da Vinci Code.
Aside for historical inaccuracies and stuff, is this a good book? I usually like to read books that are popular, controversial, or whatever, becuase I like to know what the fuss is all about, but I haven't read this one. Is it worth reading just for the entertainment value?
Sam, I haven't read it either but I have yet to hear anyone who's read it that hasn't enjoyed it. And for a responsible Christian it should be mandatory reading simply because the misconceptions it fosters are going to become a part of our cultural mythology for at least a generation to come.

It's on my must read list, just haven't gotten there yet.
It is an engaging and fast-moving story, though not particularly sophisticated for this genre. The only problem is that you will have to suspend your disbelief at points -- especially during a long scene around the middle of the book where the lead character, Sophie, gets a "re-education" on church history. If you are a student of theology and church history (even mildly), then at times it will be equivelant to a scientist watching a sci-fi movie where the astronauts walk around on astroids in full gravity with their helmets off.

And I agree that it is a must-read because of its cultural impact. Having read the book has opened the door for me to several deep conversations with non-Christians; and I've seen unschooled Christians acquire an interest in church history because of the book.
Abiogenesis: A Problem of Origins (part 2)
This is a bit off-topic, but I have a question about an argument I've heard regarding ID.

There's this argument that you've probably heard of called the Watchmaker analogy.

Sometimes I hear the response that if it's true that everything which is complex requires a creator, then God Himself requires a creator (and that creator its creator, and so on) which leads to an infinite regress. Therefore, the argument is self-refuting.

I imagine there might be an error in their interpretation of the argument... what are your thoughts?
You're in luck! I've written an article to counter this very objection, which is posted on the LifeWay.com/apologetics site. It is titled: "Who Made God?"
So I think you are saying that the Watchmaker argument does not claim that "everything which is complex requires a creator", but instead "everything (which began to exist) which is complex requires a creator".

I think that makes sense.
We've actually got a couple of different themes being dealt with here. The "watchmaker" argument is a part of the Teleological Argument, which deals with observations of specified complexity within the existing cosmos. The Cosmological Argument covers the problem of the existence of anything at all, like the universe or God, no matter how complex that thing happens to be.

Many people misunderstand the cause/effect argument. They think it is that everything needs a cause, when in actuality it is every effect that needs a cause. The universe is the kind of thing that must have an origin of necessity (based on the kind of thing it is) and which has also been demonstrated by science to indeed have one. The beginning of the universe is an "effect" that requires a cause.
Paul, couldn't you also say that God's decision to create a universe is an effect, and then have to point to a cause to it?

I suppose you could say the cause for God creating the universe was a motive, desire, or inclination to create the universe, and that the motive, desire, or inclination was not an effect, but was always present in God from eternity. That would be one way of arguing that the cause of the universe was a personal being.

Sam
Sam, now you've gone beyond the efficient cause to the final cause (ala Aristotle) and the driving factors beyond. Here we wrestle with issues of atemporality and God's immutability. I have difficulty thinking in terms of God pondering and agonizing, and finally "deciding" to create. I have often entertained the idea that the created order and the plan that He put into place in some way proceeds from God like and infinite ray. But I think this suffers certain philosophical shortcomings.

However, I think there are other ways of demonstrating personality in the cause. The problem with impersonal causes is that they simply happen when certain conditions obtain. For example, if you mix baking soda and vinegar you will get a chemical eruption, and it will happen immediately. If there is a natural cause, it has to be something that exists in this temporal stream. This means the sufficient conditions to cause this universe either should have obtained from infinity past (if it could ever obtain without antecedent), and we should have a dead universe by now, or it must have an infinite series of preceding sufficient causes. William Lane Craig argues that only a personal agent who can choose to create or not create can break this stalemate. Additionally, I think we can look at the resulting creation to witness the precision, beauty, and fine-tuning involved. An impersonal cause would have no conscious ability to care about any particular arrangement of the laws of physics, and there are far more arrangements that would lead to a mundane universe than would lead to complexity. Also, if it is true that an effect cannot produce something greater than its cause, then the fact of our personhood should count for something.
So what does a systems engineer do, and how do you have the time to write in this blog (and keep up-to-date reading philosophy)? :P
Systems engineer roughly equates to "programmer," though it often involves business analysis, application architecture, project management, and technical documentation. Right now I do e-commerce development and my primary responsibility is to LifeWaystores.com, though I am just now beginning work on a new business-to-business site for our Broadman & Holman publishing division.

Of course I read whenever I have time. Most often I read essays. This is a good use of time because it allows me to quickly consume distilled information. There are countless of these freely available on the internet. LeaderU is one good repository of articles, which we've tried with some success to emulate on our apologetics site (which I maintain in my spare time). Also, I have an hour commute to work and I've found many audio resources to help make that time productive (2 total hours per day).

As far as leftover time, this is one reason I only post about once a week. Perhaps you should consider asking Sam where he gets the time to do one a day.
Oh, Sam's a machine.
Your new pic is nice, by the way.
Thanks. That's an image I had our graphics person make for one of our apologetics articles. Represents General and Special Revelation. Seems to cover all the bases. Wish it showed up on past comments though.
I'm always curious to know how people who have such busy lives manage to become so well-informed and prolific. I have a good excuse. I didn't work from about 1998 until 2000. I had lots of free time, and I devoured the Bible, other books and articles. I also participated in a lot of on line discussions and debates. Most of what I've been posting on my blogs comes either from notes I have made over the years or things I've already written.

Sam
By the way, Paul, I love the new picture you have.
Sam, I've thought about posting some old dialog excerpts myself. I've got quite a load. One's long enough to make a book, but it's mostly a debate over epistemology with a postmodern fellow. It'd probably drive all my visitors away — very tedious and ultimately fruitless.
Abiogenesis: A Problem of Origins (part 1)
Ah, and I know the problem is even worse than part 1 here describes it.Interesting then, how all school children are taught about the success of the Miller-Urey experiment that "created the building blocks of life in a lab."That's a blantant misuse of revisionist scientism for indoctrination.
I think it's a case of, "It happened 'cause we're here aren't we. And God sure didn't to it, so there must be an answer out there somewhere we just haven't found yet."
I think that's a good point about how you can't have evolution without reproduction. So between chemistry and life, there could not have been evolution. The first living things could not have evolved.

But there is a possible defeater. When I studied chemistry in the navy, we learned about auto-catalytic reactions. Some chemical reactions feed on themselves. The products of the reaction act as a catalyst to keep the reaction going. Something like that could have provided some kind of "evolution" that lead to the first form of life.

Aren't viruses more simple forms of life than simple cells? I've heard that it's debatable whether viruses should even be considered "life," although they reproduce. Now granted, viruses depend for their survival on other cells. However, they nevertheless still show that it's possible for there to be more simple forms of life than cells. It could be that whatever existed prior to bacteria or whatever just hasn't survived in the fossil record. Perhaps because whatever there was, there wasn't much of it. It wasn't until it finally became bacteria that it really took off and spread.

Sam
Sam, it's actually much worse than you depict. If Paul doesn't cover it in parts 2 or 3, I'll add more details.I think what you describe from Chemistry is what would be called an exothermic reaction. It can be shown that these types of reactions are impossible in prebiotic conditions.

viruses cannot exist without hosts, so they must necessarily have come first. The simplest bacteria today have thousands of genes, even given the benefit of the doubt, that there might have been some minimalist bacteria in the beginning it would still have needed hundreds of genes just to support replication. This isn't possible without DNA and RNA in place first.

And beside that, there is fossil evidence of replicating microbial life right from 3.85 billion years ago. Right around the instant the earth's crust hardened. This makes it impossible to appeal to happenstance and long time periods for the chemical accident to have happened. Many scientists nowadays will admit that abiogenesis must happen automatically and quickly...deterministically. Otherwise there's no chance it would have happened, let alone instantly.
I've been surprised that I don't hear the origins of life researchers suggest the virus connection, but it seems understood that viruses came after the fact. They are both non-self-replicating and vulnerable to the elements outside of a protecting host. Even so, they are highly complex molecules with even worse chances of forming up than the "simplest" proteins. I'll probably discuss proteins in the next post (hope I don't regret wading into the science).

Speculation on this is fun, but we all have limited expertise here. What compels me so much about this issue is that very many scientists at the top of their fields, who are also not Christian (many are not even theists), have thrown their hands up over this issue. As far as I can tell, the theories we hear bandied about in the media or Discover Channel have been largely abandoned in the academy. When you work out the theoretical chemistry, you just don't come up with the necessary chemical pathways to create anything noteworthy. It's like stirring 1000 ball bearings in a kettle. It doesn't matter how long you do it, you'll never make an engine out of them. If dozens of atheists who are experts in this field want to tell me that it's just beyond their understanding, I'm not going to argue with them. In the area of evolution, I can take their own data and show they've come to the wrong conclusion, but in this issue they've done all the work for me. All that's left is for me to point out the situation.
One point of clarification. It seems that it's not even accurate to say that "it's just beyond their understanding". The fact is that chemistry is very well understood. I'm concerned that someone would read that to mean that we are using a God of the gaps argument. The truth of the matter is that chemistry is a hard science and the scientists know of no way within the laws of chemistry that life could have arisen.

That's why so many have gone the panspermia route. They claim that some imaginary world could have had conditions not even conceivable on earth and perhaps with elements not yet known to our periodic table. Then once life arose there, it could have been carried by solar winds on debris from an asteroid hit.Really that's about all the hope they have at this point.
I think you've overextended yourself with the "not yet known to our periodic table." The only potential elements left are high up the table, which means they would have a huge atomic mass, meaning they would be freak elements that would have to come about in exotic stellar environments. Plus, there would be little flexibility with such elements to work as molecular building blocks, like carbon does. Light molecules are the best and most abundant, and carbon is the absolute best core molecule. Perhaps a post on the problems of silicon (once proposed as an alternative) and the remarkable properties of carbon would be instructive.

You're right that they do understand chemistry pretty well, and that's what's such a problem for them. Those who say things like "life as we know it" are seeking to escape the constraints of chemistry with their imagination. But I see imagination employed constantly in the life of the materialist. In fact, I think I mention in my last post that evolutionists charge their skeptics with a "failure of imagination." We can certainly be gracious to the ignorance inherent in emerging science, but there are some issues that seem insurmountable in principle.
Jeff,

And exothermic reaction is not the same thing as an autocatalytic reaction. An exothermal reaction is a reaction that gives off heat. An autocatalytic reaction is a reaction whose products act as catalysts to keep the reaction going. I've been doing some reading tonight on autocatalytic reactions, and I found out that there are self-replicating molecules. There's a lot of research going on right now into self-replicating molecules as a possible explanation for how replication could've taken place before cells.

I grant that viruses can't exist without cells, but that misses my point. My point was only that it's possible for more simple forms of life to exist besides cells. Viruses may not be able to reproduce without cells, but maybe some other more simple form of life that we don't happen to know about could. The only way you could rule out the possibility is to argue that self-replication isn't possible without cells.

Sam
Question about autocatalytic reactions...Does it have any bearing? The question isn't whether chemistry works, the question is can chemistry result in biology?Wouldn't an autocatalytic reaction that's not happening in a lab, require an influx of energy to continue? (otherwise you violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics). And wouldn't a reaction that requires an influx of energy be called an endothermic reaction?

I know of no sequence of autocatalytic reactions that can proceed from simple compounds to more complex compounds in an unbroken cascade that finally results in amino acids or proteins.

The biological definition of 'life' is an organism that carries on the 5 basic metabolic activities: respiration, ingestion, digestion, excretion, reproduction.Viruses fail on a few of these grounds. Anything simpler than a cell probably can't do this. Now if we want to loosen up our definition of life to something that can replicate that's fine. But there will still be a boundary to cross between chemistry and biology.

Oh, and even though something like a virus couldn't survive and replicate, it also couldn't be arrived at via chemistry...you can't even get proteins via chemistry.
My point in bringing up autocatalytic reactions is to address Paul's point that before you can have evolution, you first have to have replication. Autocatalytic reactions are possible means of replication which could possibly result in more complex molecules.

Whether the reactions are exothermic or endothermic isn't relevent. The question is whether they replicate. Autocatalytic reactions don't violate the second law of thermodynamics. No chemical reaction in nature happens in a closed system. Energy can come from the sun, from other reactions, from the earth (magma, hot springs, etc.) and several other sources.

But having read more about it last night, I think self-replicating molecules are probably a better example than autocatalytic reactions.

I dont' know of any specific reactions that can produce proteins and such either. But if these reactions occure, then it seems at least possible that such a thing could happen. All you need for evolution is self-replication.

It's not relevent whether viruses are "life" or not. It's not relevent whether anything more simple than a cell is "life." What's relevent is whether self-replication can take place without cells. If it can, the it's possible that cellulare life could have evolved.

Sam
Sam, I disagree that autocatalytic reactions are all that's needed to say that cellular life could have evolved. I might even disagree with applying the term 'self-replicating' to an autocatalytic reaction. the simple fact that the reaction creates more catalyst guarantees that the chemical reaction will eventually end, and will end with more chemicals...not with biology.

The 2nd law still applies to earth, even though there is an influx of energy from the sun. I can dig up articles in support of that if you'd like.

Check out 'autocatalytic' on wikipedia. It states up front that the reaction needs an influx of energy or 'food' to continue.

I'm curious whether you are playing devil's advocate or whether you believe that science has a plausible answer for the origin of life question. If you actually believe that science has an answer, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that they really don't.
Yes it's true that you first have to have reproduction before it can technically be termed evolution, but that wasn't my primary point. My point was to show that not only is a cell as complex as a factory, but it is even more complex in that it can marshal all its resources to make a copy of itself. It may be conceptually simple (maybe not in practice) to replicate a single molecule, but to replicate all the machinery of the cell, get it aligned, and then perform the division is a remarkable task.

Even if we can find a chemical pathway to come up with some self-replicating molecule you are still miles from any meaningful next step. This is a route that I see being proposed by some — the idea of intermediate molecules and proto-cells — but there is 1) no evidence for the pathways, 2) no good explanation for the how such pathways might proceed, and 3) great gaping chasms between each imagined step. At best, it is like imagining that we can get from Florida to South America by jumping from island to island.
Jeff,

I might disagree with calling autocatalytic reactions "self-replicating" too, but they are similar. Even so, there are molecules that are self-replicating. That shows that cells aren't necessary for self-replication.

Having studied physics and thermodynamics in both the navy and in college, I'm quite informed about the second law of thermodynamics.

All chemical reactions require "food." Otherwise, what's there to react? That includes the chemical reactions that go on in cell reproduction.

I think I said somewhere else on Paul's blog that I don't know enough about chemistry, biology, evolution, and intelligent design to have a strong opinion or to argue for any view. So I'm not trying to argue against your view so much as I'm trying to get answers to questions that came to my mind when I read Paul's post.

Sam
Paul, I guess I misunderstood your point. What kind of evidence would you expect there to be if there were intermediate steps before cells? It's hard for me to imagine what kind of evidence would've been left. The only reason we have any evidence of very early cells is because cells have membranes, and mebranes create texture, which can be preserved in rocks or whatever. But just chemical reactions happening in fluids wouldn't leave any traces, would they?

If cells are irreducibly complex, then I would have to agree that no process of evolution could produce them. But if not, then I don't see why it wouldn't at least be possible that self-replicating molecules could evolve in such a way that would eventually produce cells.

Sam
Sam, good honest questions. I think that you might be able to teach us something from your navy knowledge.

As for your last question to Paul: I think that there would be evidence. If there were a certain proposed intermediary step that theoretically consists of a large amount of a certain compound then there would be chemical evidence in sediment layed down at that time. Paleogeology is probably the name for that field of study.

Even if cells weren't irreducibly complex, I wouldn't automatically relinquish the point. That first jump from chemistry to biology must somehow explain the creation of a very complex single-celled organism that carries out respiration, ingestion, secretion, and reproduction via a DNA program...and it must have developed in a way that does NOT appeal to random mutation, and probably not to natural selection.

Having some background in these sciences I think you'd be extremely stimulated by some of the literature in this area. I can recommend a few great books if you're interested (ones written to a popular audience).
Sam,

"What kind of evidence..." — I would expect to see chemical signatures for the kinds of molecules and protocells that are being suggested. I'd expect to see evidence for the kind of atmosphere and oceans that could create such a thing. I'd expect to see a workable model for how such molecules could be formed.

As I understand it, we do not merely find direct traces of microscopic life in the early geological layers, we also find the kinds of chemical byproducts that accompany such life, and these chemical signatures are missing in the layers beneath. These chemical traces were exactly what were being debated in the Mars rock controversy, i.e., was it Martian life, Martian life byproduct, a complex crystalline structure, or just contamination from Earth. Since the precursor protocells must be chemically similar, or at least chemically distinctive, we should find some chemical traces among the normal silicate and crystal structures of the strata. There is nothing.

I think there is a problem with even getting your first simple self-replicating molecule to occur by natural assembly — problems with the building blocks for such a thing as well as problems with assembling them into the necessary configuration.

Even so, at some point these molecules need to completely transform their function in order to cover the needs of the next step up the chain. There are some gaping holes in what could possible exist between such a self-replicator and the irreducibly complex "simple cell," which depends on such things as a protective cell wall, a protein manufacturing plant, an amino acid and energy supply chain, a protein instruction source, not to mention the logistics of moving things around, dealing with protein folding, waste management, replication, and event management.

As to whether it is theoretically possible to run the necessary chain of events to get to a bacteria, I'm inclined to say yes but I'm not sure if I can. There just doesn't seem to be a supply of the necessary chemicals to get started and there may be no legitimate pathways between the various points. This means that each step would need to be yet another miraculous and unique jump with the required chemicals and molecules to assemble that next step just magically arriving from somewhere. The only solution I can think of is if the preceding step always ended with a molecular machine that was capable of building not itself, but the next step up the ladder. This is like saying a robot magically appeared that could replicate itself, but then one day his software got scrambled which resulted in the instructions and inclination to build a super robot, and so on until you get a Godbot.
Jeff,

Yes, tell me your reading recommendations.

Paul, what you're saying about chemical evidence makes good sense. But how exhaustive can our search for the precursors to life possibly be? I mean the earth is a pretty big place, and if all life on earth has a common origin, then that origin must've been located in a small area. Looking for it would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. It seems that we could only get a general idea of atmospheric conditions and local chemistry by examining sedimentary layers from various spots around the world. If the evidence for ancient chemistry were very strong, I would think there would be more of a consensus about what it was like. The diversity in opinion seems to suggest that we just don't know that much about the chemistry in those days. Our evidence isn't very exhaustive at all. We have a little evidence on which we can make general speculations, and that's about it. With the little evidence we have, I don't think we can rule out the possibility that some conditions existed somewhere that might've given rise to the necessary chemicals. That possibility would be good grounds for continuing the search. I don't think we could start ruling out the possibility until the search has been a little more exhaustive.
Sam, depending on your epistomological framework you will either decide that chemical evolution happened unless it's proven exhaustively it didn't or you will say that it should be proven possible and/or likely before you'll believe it.

That diversity of opinion you speak of exists precisely because of the naturalistic framework employed by these scientists that will never consider an intelligent agent in the origin. That's the sole reason you see diversity of opinion. And really the science against a prebiotic soup is very strong and settled (from my understanding).What you see is people arguing about what type of soup would be necessary for chemical evolution and then despite the evidence they will assume that type of soup existed.

But perhaps my strongest recommendation to you, because you've got the intellect to handle it, is: Mere Creation. It's edited by William Dembsky. Chapter 5 is written by Stephen C. Meyer and contains a fairly detailed discussion of the problems of abiogenesis. This book is the single best rundown I've seen of all of the scientific challenges faced by naturalism, as well as the positive evidence for ID. It gets scientifically detailed enough that it would be hard for the average person to understand all of it (yet no less valuable to them)...but I think that for you, it will be ideal.
Thanks Jeff.
Here's a promising one: Origins of Life

And here's one that's probably fairly good by Paul Davies, who is not a Christian, but is open to some rather progressing thinking for a non-theist: The Fifth Miracle
I yanked this from a reader review on Amazon (for The Fifth Miracle); it's a quotation from Davies:

In claiming that water means life, NASA scientists are not merely being upbeat about their project. They are making--tacitly--a huge [italics] and profound assumption about the nature of nature. They are saying, in effect, that the laws of the universe are cunningly contrived to coax life into being against the raw odds; that the mathematical principles of physics, in their elegant simplicity, somehow know in advance about life and its vast complexity. If life follows from soup with causal dependability, the laws of nature encode a hidden subtext, a cosmic imperative, which tells them: 'Make life!' And, through life, its by-products: mind, knowledge, understanding. It means the laws of the universe have engineered their own comprehension. This is a breathtaking vision of nature, magnificent and uplifting in its majestic sweep. I hope it is correct. It would be wonderful if it were correct. But if it is, it represents a shift in the scientific world-view as profound as that initiated by Copernicus and Darwin put together. It should not be glossed over with glib statements that water plus organics equals life, obviously, for it is far from obvious (p. 246).

I thought this was interesting because either way, the theist comes out ahead. Either the teleological argument gets stronger yet, or the case for special creation does.
The problem with the needle in the haystack idea is that this means the volume of materials involved is dramatically reduced, and with it the odds of yielding anything. It is not as though if you get just the right chemicals together in the right place they will magically assemble into RNA and proteins. The great hope was that if we had entire oceans full of a rich broth of the chemicals, and we had plenty of time to work with, then "anything can happen." But great oceans and lakes leave traces, which are absent. Yet even were that the case, there are still logistical problems of assembling certain molecules in the presence of water and oxygen (which it appears existed on early earth).

The alternative to all this is to come up with some exotic and isolated environment that contains the right molecular precursors and has a clearly defined chemical pathway which would forgo the need of raw chance. Every model explored seems to lack all the required materials or a feasible pathway. We don't need to look for the needle (chemical evidence) in places where we know in principle it won't be. And no one's got a good idea where we ought to be looking for that evidence. There are known issues with deep sea hydrothermal vents, clay basin, cometary material, etc. All this is why "directed panspermia" (seeding by aliens) is a legitimate theory nowadays.
Sam, you might find this article valuable: http://www.trueorigin.org/originoflife.asp

Paul, since Davies is way too friendly to naturalism, and doesn't have a background in chemistry, I think he's too friendly to the propaganda. I prefer something written by Shapiro on this subject. because he's a biochemist and at the top of the field of origin of life studies. Although I haven't read this...
I'm starting to remember why I gave up trying to learn about evolution and ID a few years ago. It's too complicated. Not that it's impossible to learn, but it sure does seem like it's going to take a lot to be proficient. Thanks for your recomendations and thoughts, though.

Sam
You Know You Live in the Internet Age When...
what's the url of his blog? I would love to see how an apologist's son thinks.
I figured someone would ask. Hope I don't regret this, but:cspruett.blogspot.com
Cute.
That's hilarious....but oh so believable!
I don't even know why I did that!
Misconceptions About Intelligent Design (part 3)
Very strong argument. You've made and supported your points very well.
Thanks Jeff! Is that for the series or just part 3?
Well, I had in mind just part III. This one went in to greater detail than the previous ones and seemed to take on more of an evidentiary tone than the others.

I just watched Contact last night. I'll blog on it in a few weeks. While I was very surprised that Carl Sagan didn't do more of a hatchet job on Christianity, I saw a few of the standard misconceptions about us in there. (just noting their pervasiveness).
I can definitely say I know more now than I knew before I read these three posts. Thanks Paul.
Misconceptions About Intelligent Design (part 2)
Why are Christian fundamentalists so stubbornly stupid? Science and religion are totally different.

I find your arguments against science to idiotic. I know of no one that claims scientists to be infallible. A great many initial theories have proven to be incorrect, so they have been discarded and replaced with more accurate theories. That is what science is about.

Scientists start by observing many occurrences of some natural phenomenon, devising a theory to explain what was observed, testing this theory by making predictions about future occurrences of the phenomenon, and finally revising or replacing the theory whenever future observations fail to match the predictions. All evidence is considered, not just that which supports the theory. As more observations conform to the theory’s predictions and none disagree, the theory becomes stronger. Evolution is one of the strongest theories.

Religion starts with a myth, accepted on faith. Observations of the real world are never purposely made. If anyone does notice that reality doesn’t match the myth, it is assumed that reality is wrong, or that the observer is fabricating the facts. If too many people start noticing that reality doesn’t match the myth, a search will be made to find some facts that will support the myth or that can be twisted so that they appear to support the myth. Any evidence that does not support the myth is discounted and ignored. Religion must be accepted on faith, because it cannot be supported by evidence.

As I understand it, the argument for Intelligent Design is that everything is so complex that it couldn’t have come into existence through random chance. Therefore, it must have been designed by some superior intelligence. I guess the person who came up with this must have spent too much time staring at his navel. He certainly didn’t look up into the night sky.

The universe is infinitely large. There are billions upon billions of galaxies. In each galaxy there are billions of stars. Around a great many of these stars, there are several planets. Not all planets have life forms, but considering how immensely large the number of planets it would be inconceivable that there are not an extremely large number of them that do. In view of the enormous numbers we are dealing with, it is entirely probable that highly complex life forms could develop. In fact, it is probable that a number of life forms have developed on some planets that are even more complex than those here on earth.

Is there a supreme being? I don’t have an answer to that question. I have seen no evidence to prove that there is, and I have seen no evidence to prove that there isn’t. Christians accept the existence of God based on a book: their bible. They “know” that their bible is the absolute truth and anyone or anything (even reality) that disagrees with their bible must be wrong. Considering that their bible is a translation of a translation with numerous errors, that it is a compilation of selected texts and that many other texts were discarded because they did not agree with their idea of what the truth should be, and that many things in their bible cannot possibly be accepted literally because they are physically impossible, it is hardly what one would consider as compelling evidence. (Of course, they do have a counter-argument to the last problem because God is all-powerful and can do the impossible.)

Logic tells me that evolution is the best explanation for life as we know it. On the other hand, Intelligent Design is logically and scientifically unsound. As such, it has no place in any science class. The issue is not whether competing theories should be taught, it is whether mythology will be taught in science classes. When you consider how poorly American students do in science these days, it is plain that we don’t need to be taking up time in their science classes to teach mythology.
Anonymous,

Are you actually looking for an answer here or are you just venting steam? I suspect the latter since you begin your rant by accusing me of being "so stubbornly stupid" — hardly an invitation to dialog. I am not going to waste my time responding to this unless I hear otherwise. It is not even worth unpacking this response merely for the benefit of my readers, since there is neither anything new here nor does it represent anything near the leading edge of this debate. In any case, thanks for finding my post worthy of your time.
I'll unpack it.

Why are fundamentalists so stubbornly stupid?

Your question assumes facts not in evidence. Before it make sense to ask why they're stupid, you first have to establish that they are stupid. And while you're at it, explain how the stupidity of fundamentalists is at all relevent to Paul's posts.

Science and religion are totally different.

There is some overlap, so they are not totally different. Both depend on inductive reasoning, and make inferences from observation. Religion consists of worldviews and assumptions about reality and our place in it just as science does.

But this point of yours is totally irrelevent. Paul has argued that ID is not strictly religious, even if it may happen to have implications for religion, or be consistent with some religious views.

I find your arguments against science to idiotic.

Paul hasn't made any arguments against science, so your discussion of how science works is irrelevent to his posts.

Religion starts with a myth, accepted on faith. Observations of the real world are never purposely made.

In that case, you must agree that ID is not "religion," since it does not begin with myth, but rather with obsevation, just as you explained science begins.

Religion must be accepted on faith, because it cannot be supported by evidence.

Why are anonymous Christian-bashers so stubbornly ignorant? One, you paint religion with too broad a brush. Two, the Christian idea of faith does not mean "belief without evidence." Three, there are scores of books full of evidence to support Christianity.

Christians accept the existence of God based on a book: their bible.

And advocates of ID accept the existence of an intelligent designer from biology and cosmology.

Considering that their bible is a translation of a translation...

Most English translations are not translations of translations; rather, they are translations from the original languages.

But your discussion of the Bible is completely irrelevent. No scientist in the ID movement bases their theory on the Bible.

...with numerous errors...

Most of which are corrected by textual critics.

many other texts were discarded because they did not agree with their idea of what the truth should be

Most were discarded, because they were deemed forgeries or did not agree with the earliest writings. And modern scholars don't seem to disagree. Just about all of the non-canonical gospels were written much later than the canonical ones. The gospel of Thomas is the only exception, and only a handful of scholars think it has an early date.

In fact, it seems that most scholars have the opposite view that you take. Rather than thinking some books were wrongly excluded, they think some books were wrongly included. Of the 13 letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament, only 7 are universally recognized as authentic. The rest are accepted with varying degrees of certainty and doubt.

Logic tells me that evolution is the best explanation for life as we know it. On the other hand, Intelligent Design is logically and scientifically unsound. As such, it has no place in any science class.

Right now, scientists disagree on whether evolution or ID is the better theory. Why should one be banned from the science class just because everybody on the other side is convinced that their side is right?

The issue is not whether competing theories should be taught, it is whether mythology will be taught in science classes.

If that were the issue, then there would be no controversy, because even ID people would agree that mythology should not be taught in science classes.
ephphatha has proven my point. Christian fundamentalists are stubbornly stupid.

"In that case, you must agree that ID is not 'religion,' since it does not begin with myth, but rather with obsevation, just as you explained science begins."

Charles Darwin and others started by observing how species in isolation adapted. Over time, natural selection favored those members that were better able to cope with their environment so their favorable characteristics were passed to the next generation. His theory is independent of religion. It neither requires the existence of God nor denies his existence. It is an explanation of scientific observations about a particular aspect of nature.

ID presupposes that God exists and tries to prove his existence by selectively taking observed facts and trying to interpret them in a manner consistent with that belief. Facts that are not consistent with that belief are ignored. Let me demonstrate how unsound your logic is.

Earth is actually a gigantic insane asylum. Criminally insane people from the planet Knarf, are sent here to isolate them from normal people. Since Knarf is much more advanced, they are able to erase our memories so we don't remember our former world. My evidence is quite straightforward. People on earth are criminally insane: they commit all sorts of atrocities against each other, from petty theft to murder and war. Of course, some of us have reformed and try to live sane, law-abiding lives. The numerous sightings of flying saucers prove that people are being brought here.

Is my myth any more nonsensical than yours? True, I don’t have a book written about it, but I do have some physical evidence for it. Astronomers at the CalTech Jet Propulsion Laboratory have recently discovered that Knarf does exist. It orbits a red dwarf star in the constellation Sagittarius, about 17,000 light years away.ID presupposes that God exists and tries to prove his existence by selectively taking observed facts and trying to interpret them in a manner consistent with that belief.

And your story is not at all analogous to how folks in the ID movement reason.
According to my dictionary, infer means to derive as a conclusion from facts. Which facts show an intelligent designer? As I pointed out in my original post, complexity does not necessarily require an intelligent designer. All of the facts that I have seen point toward evolution, with occasional intervention from naturally occurring catastrophes. I cannot absolutely rule out the existence of an intelligent designer, no more than you can absolutely rule out the existence of people on the planet Knarf. On the other hand, there is no more convincing evidence for an intelligent designer than there is for people on the planet Knarf. The only way you can show an intelligent designer is to presuppose an intelligent designer.
Anon, it would seem that your steam is not yet fully vented, but it does look like you've at least improved your focus with Sam's (ephphatha's) help.

Where we take issue is with your own presupposition of the motives of Intelligent Design theorists. Since you believe that Darwinian evolution is such an unassailable fact, you seem to think that the only possible reason one would have to question it is on the grounds of religious conviction. But this idea displays both a lack of knowledge regarding the scientific issues that ID is raising as well as ignorance over the members of this movement. (The discussion of ID is curiously fixated on motives and philosophy with science only along for the ride.)

Here are a few items for your consideration:

Michael Behe, one of the chief advocates of ID theory, was actually propelled into this debate not as a result of his Roman Catholic beliefs, but after he had read Michael Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Denton is not a theist, and even Behe holds to a very modest view of the activities of this designer, which makes the pure "creationists" blanch.

There are members of the ID movement, such as David Berlinski, who are not even theists.

And I was a Christian well before I came to reject the theory of evolution. I did so only after looking at the pros and cons of the theory. Before I was a Christian I did not even bother to look at the evidence against it. So, at which point was I "biased" by my worldview?

However, you are right in a sense when you say, "the only way you can show an intelligent designer is to presuppose an intelligent designer." We must certainly be open to the possibility of a "designer" before we could ever even hope to come to some conclusion regarding one (but please note that there are also certain assumptions made about the mind, the senses, and the physical world on which science itself is dependent). If you did not first suppose that there could be a God, then even were one to appear before your very eyes you would be forced to write the experience off as an hallucination. God could never breach your fortress of unbelief even through an eternity of hell.

But I think this idea of a designer is one that is definitely in play for a variety of reasons that go beyond the scope of biological evolution. Are you suggesting that a "designer" is off limits in principle? Are you dogmatically resistant no matter how many pointers may be found in support? ID claims that those pointers have mounted to a sufficient level to warrant notice.
I have not claimed, nor do I believe, that Darwinian evolution is an “unassailable fact.” Given the scientific evidence that is known today, it is unequivocally the best explanation for the variety of life on the earth.

Your assumption that I “think that the only possible reason one would have to question it is on the grounds of religious conviction” is equally incorrect. I observe that the vast majority of those who do question it, do so for religious reasons, and almost all of those who are pushing to have ID taught in science classes are Christian fundamentalists who oppose the idea of evolution because it conflicts with their claim that the bible is literally accurate. I think that ephphatha was mistaken when he said that most English translations of the bible are from the original languages. It is my understanding that the original books of the bible have been lost. The books he assumes are originals are actually translated from Greek translations of the original books.

My statement that, “the only way you can show an intelligent designer is to presuppose an intelligent designer” was to point out the circular reasoning of ID. That type of reasoning is logically unsound. You can prove anything, if you presuppose it to be true.

I am not suggesting that the idea of an intelligent designer is “off limits.” I am merely pointing out that evolution is a perfectly sound theory that adequately explains the variety of life. Unless you can show that it is not correct, the only reason I see for an alternate theory with the extra baggage of the supernatural, is to foster religious doctrine. If you want to accept the idea of an intelligent designer on faith, be my guest. But, unless you can produce some evidence for it, I shall remain skeptical.
Anon, I think you've stepped up your game a bit. I'm glad to see that.

"Given the scientific evidence that is known today, it is unequivocally the best explanation for the variety of life on the earth."

This argument I can respect: arguing to the best explanation. However, I think that naturalistic evolution is not, in fact, the best explanation. I think it suffers serious flaws, but I imagine you would far rather say "give us more time" regarding these shortcomings than to admit that any of them provides contrary evidence.

"I observe that the vast majority of those who do question it, do so for religious reasons."

By saying "for religious reasons" I wonder if you really mean that the majority happen to be "religious" people? There is a difference here. If observing that life is the product of intelligent design requires one to first accept the thesis that a designer may exist, then of course you'd see a high number of "religious" ID supporters. Atheists are certainly not ready to cave in to an ID conclusion, and if they do they will not soon be atheists. Antony Flew is a case-in-point. It was ID theory itself that actually pushed him over the line from atheism to theism. It begs the question to assume that because many of the ID proponents are theists that it is a fallacious theory. I would encourage you to keep your eye on the ball: stick with the merits or deficiencies of the theory.

"Almost all of those who are pushing to have ID taught in science classes are Christian fundamentalists who oppose the idea of evolution because it conflicts with their claim that the bible is literally accurate."

I wonder how you would know what all these people's motives and agendas are. Are you seeing literal statements to this effect or are you just parroting their critics and making assumptions? I do not dispute that there is some truth to what you say, but most of the "fundamentalists" that you have in mind are not completely on board with ID theory. Many do not understand it and others think it gives too much ground to evolutionary science. I am not seeking here to make a case for what Christians would ideally like the world to be, but I am simply defending ID theory at this point.

"I think that ephphatha was mistaken when he said that most English translations of the bible are from the original languages. It is my understanding that the original books of the bible have been lost. The books he assumes are originals are actually translated from Greek translations of the original books."

Let's try to keep our focus here. If you want to have a debate over the veracity of Scripture, start by reading this post and then drop your comments there. Be sure to give any references you have to support your critical theories.

But let me just make a clarification here. Sam didn't say that the English translations are derived from the original writings of the authors; he said they were translations from the original languages. The many ancient Greek and Hebrew books that we have in our possession are not, then, translations but copies. This means that the debate is not over the modern translations, which any non-Christian ancient language scholar can evaluate for themselves, but over the state of those ancient copies. This is the exact same problem faced by those who would seek to know what Julius Caesar, Tacitus, or Homer originally wrote. The difference is that the biblical manuscript's evidence (in both number and age) puts all other books of ancient history to shame.

"My statement that, 'the only way you can show an intelligent designer is to presuppose an intelligent designer' was to point out the circular reasoning of ID."

Again, they're not starting with the assumption that biological life was intelligently designed, but I would say that they are open to the option and allowing the evidence to speak for itself. Even if there is a God, it does not necessarily mean that He has designed life in the way that ID suggests that He has based on the evidence. I could equally say that the only way to prove nuclear physics is to first presuppose atomic particles. Should the fact that there were atomists (for metaphysical reasons) long before modern science cloud our judgment, or should we let the observations speak for themselves?

"You can prove anything, if you presuppose it to be true."

This is a stretch and it ignores the fact that ID does indeed have evidence in its favor. I'm not sure how you think we could prove that lake Michigan was made of chocolate pudding if we first presupposed it to be true.

"I am merely pointing out that evolution is a perfectly sound theory that adequately explains the variety of life. Unless you can show that it is not correct, the only reason I see for an alternate theory with the extra baggage of the supernatural is to foster religious doctrine."

And we end on a reasonable closing thought. You seem willing to accept, in theory, arguments against evolution. And if evolution is found wanting, I wonder if you would do like Antony Flew and "follow the evidence wherever it leads?" I can admit that if ID failed in its task (not failed to convince just you), then the only people who would still be clinging to it are those who do not realize that they have lost the battle or those who believe that their understanding of theism demands that evolution must be false.Which facts show an intelligent designer?

Whole books have been written about it, so I can't go into all the details, but two off the top of my head are irreducible complexity and information in DNA.

Given the scientific evidence that is known today, it is unequivocally the best explanation for the variety of life on the earth.

Even if we grant that evolution happens to be the best explanation, should we disallow alternate explanations when evolution admittedly is not without its difficulties? Whether it's the best explanation is obviously in dispute among experts. Should we teach only evolution just because you happen to find evolution more convincing than ID?

I observe that the vast majority of those who do question it, do so for religious reasons, and almost all of those who are pushing to have ID taught in science classes are Christian fundamentalists who oppose the idea of evolution because it conflicts with their claim that the bible is literally accurate.

You may be right about that, but it's not relevent. In the debate over whether or not ID is a viable option, we must base our decision on the merits of the arguments for it, not on the fact that many who jump on the band wagon have a religious motive to do so.

I think that ephphatha was mistaken when he said that most English translations of the bible are from the original languages. It is my understanding that the original books of the bible have been lost. The books he assumes are originals are actually translated from Greek translations of the original books.

I think you're confusing "translation" with "copy." You're quite right that the originals are lost. But copies have survived in the original languages. The entire new testament, for example, was written in Greek (with the possible exception of Matthew), and we have copies of the entire new testament in Greek. Likewise, the Old Testament was written mostly in Hebrew with some Aramaic, and we have all of it in Hebrew and Aramaic. Daniel is debatable. The first few chapters and the last few chapters have been preserved in Hebrew with everything inbetween in Aramaic. There is some dispute as to whether it was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Aramaic or Aramaic that was translated into Hebrew.

To be quite honest with you, I don't know enough about evolution or ID to have an opinion on which theory is better. I tried to educate myself on it a few year ago, but discovered that it would require more knowledge of biology and chemistry than I was willing to get into at the time. My suspicious is that there are strong opinions on both sides held by people who really aren't anymore qualified than I am to debate the issue. I suspect that there are motives on both sides that have little to do with the actual evidence. Since most people are not that educated in chemistry and biology, the strong opinions they have must somehow be based on their trust in those who are qualified. But right now, the experts disagree, and as Paul has shown, the disagreement is not entirely because of religion. Not that any of this is relevent to the debate, but it is my hunch.

That is not to say that I am agnostic regarding a creator. I do believe there is a creator, but not because of the arguments for intelligent design. I have other reasons that have nothing to do with ID.

Sam
While I did not formally reject evolution until after my conversion, I was set on the road to faith by way of "design" arguments. These included the teleological argument (relating to physics and cosmology) and the problem of abiogenesis. This design evidence opened my mind to the possibility of a personally involved designer, which in turn enabled me to consider the possible activities of such a designer. The snowball began to roll simply because I was exposed to data that tends not to be emphasized by naturalistic science.
An observation: Anonymous either didn't read the original blog entry whatsoever, or he assumes Paul was lying, and presumes to tell us what he (and ID) really believes.

I think I understand the science behind both theories pretty well, and I can debate the issue based on the science itself. But, if you want to do that with me, you'll need to stick to the science. Oh, and at the first hint of displaying a predisposition of naturalism, I'll call you a hypocrite ("You can prove anything, if you presuppose it to be true.").And I propose we debate this issue over email, and when we are done that we post it publically and solicit opinions on who is the most rational and intelligent one.
Misconceptions About Intelligent Design (part 1)